As many writers have noted, the basic thesis, or strategy, upon which Gandhi's satyagraha and all non-violent resistance rests is that all structures of power - government and social organizations - always depend upon the voluntary cooperation of great numbers of people even when they seem to rely upon coercion. The chief wielders of power, in other words, must have the tacit assistance and cooperation of hundreds or even thousands of persons in order to exercise power. The strategy, then, of those who oppose or wish to change an established power structure, particularly one equipped with overwhelming physical force, is to persuade large numbers of persons to refuse to cooperate with it any longer. This is not the objective of non-violent resistance, but its strategy.

Quote

Publicity and propaganda are essential tools in securing widespread compliance. Even under circumstances when open publication is banned, a non-violent resistance movement must have some means of communication. There are numerous examples of underground newspapers operating effectively during World War II in Nazi-occupied Europe where non-violent resistance met with considerable success.

Quote

The violence of resisters themselves is, of course, the best justification for violent counteraction; but if resisters are non-violent, the government is faced with the dilemma of how to explain their violence or coercion. This explains the tendency of all governments when faced with non-violent resistance to emphasize any violent fringes that may emerge.

Your last quote Tom, I just read that the other day in a book edited by Carl Watner that was on Kats bookshelf. Small world.I think they call it a no win scenario for gov't. If they leave the disobeyer alone, then he wins. If they arrest him then it is easier for his supporters to rally support to their cause. A british official prior to the Indian independence put it like this-the protesters put the gov't in a position to abdicate, or resist the resisters.

In April 1975, facing an utterly demoralized country and an understandable case of writer's block, Havel committed an act of such sheer ballsiness that the shock waves are still being felt in repressive countries 30 years later. He simply sat down and, knowing that he'd likely be imprisoned for his efforts, wrote an open letter to his dictator, Gustav Husak, explaining in painstaking detail just why and how totalitarianism was ruining Czechoslovakia.

"So far," Havel scolded Husak, "you and your government have chosen the easy way out for yourselves, and the most dangerous road for society: the path of inner decay for the sake of outward appearances; of deadening life for the sake of increasing uniformity; of deepening the spiritual and moral crisis of our society, and ceaselessly degrading human dignity, for the puny sake of protecting your own power."

It was the Big Bang that set off the dissident movement in Central Europe. For those lucky enough to read an illegally retyped copy or hear it broadcast over Radio Free Europe, the effect was not unlike what happened to the 5,000 people who bought the Velvet Underground's first record: After the shock and initial pleasure wore off, many said, "Wait a minute, I can do this too!" By standing up to a system that had forced every citizen to make a thousand daily compromises, Havel was suggesting a novel new tactic: Have the self-respect to tell the truth, never mind the consequences, and maybe you'll put the bastards on the defensive.

Quote

This act of literary punk rock was followed, logically enough, by a defense of rock music that sparked the Charter 77 movement. Or, as Havel told a startled Lou Reed when he met the Velvet Underground's former frontman in 1990, "Did you know that I am president because of you?"

Defending The Plastic PeopleIn 1968 a rare copy of the Velvet Underground's first record somehow found its way to Prague. It became a sensation in music circles and beyond, eventually inspiring the Czech name for their bloodless 1989 overthrow of Communist rule, "the Velvet Revolution." The Plastic People, then a newly formed troupe that borrowed heavily from Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention, quickly added a half-dozen songs from The Velvet Underground & Nico to their repertoire. The group was banned not long after the Prague Spring concluded but continued to play at weddings and secret shows.

Then, in 1976, four members were arrested on charges of "disturbing the peace." The Czech dissident movement, newly roused by Havel's open letter, made the trial an international cause. Havel, who intuitively grasped the symbolism of the case, was in the courtroom every day to witness and document the judicial farce. Just as George Orwell saw picking up a gun to shoot fascists in the Spanish Civil War as "the only conceivable thing to do," Havel understood this assault on freedom as one outrage too far. It was a turning point in his life. "Everyone understood," he wrote later, "that an attack on the Czech musical underground was an attack on a most elementary and important thing, something that in fact bound everyone together: it was an attack on the very notion of living within the truth, on the real aims of life."

I think they call it a no win scenario for gov't. If they leave the disobeyer alone, then he wins. If they arrest him then it is easier for his supporters to rally support to their cause. A british official prior to the Indian independence put it like this-the protesters put the gov't in a position to abdicate, or resist the resisters.

Or, Option C: They arrest the disobeyer, and no one except supporters cares. And in fact, the majority have been so conditioned to support the police and government that they actively oppose anyone who doesn't "just do what the police say!"

Witness the comments in the newspapers about Lauren and Russell, not to mention the Browns.

sometimes it is the little things .... something small is at least somethingIt does seem funny that some music in Prague was the rallying point, but it sure beats just sitting around complaining and throwing up your hands in dispair.Maybe a rebel alliance wookie will be the rallying point.

Quote KBCraig<Or, Option C: They arrest the disobeyer, and no one except supporters cares. And in fact, the majority have been so conditioned to support the police and government that they actively oppose anyone who doesn't "just do what the police say!">

Maybe it is the issue. I though Ed had support, but lost it due to his own hostility, and he made himself into a kook by talking about the illuminati etc. To get public support, which is ideal, it needs to be an issue that many people feel strongly about. Taxes for instance. Obscure issues that are important to us, but not to the mainstream, will not gain much public support. My car registration issue for instance. I expect very little public support. My goal instead is to modify the enforcers behavior. To encourage them to choose not to enforce their own laws. That is prolly why the big popular movements in the past break down when the big issue is settled. The smaller issues just don't draw big numbers of angry people willing to challenge gov't at great personal risk.

The enforcers are partially paid through your registration.In the Brown's case, it was more that the income tax has been thoroughly vetted. Most Americans would like to change it. Which is why we see several new formats 'flat'/'fair'. Personally, I would be more willing to return to tariffs, and a smaller federal government.

All anarchists share a like goal: the abolition of the State. This goal is based on their commonly shared understanding that all government, by its very nature, is invasive. What distinguishes voluntaryists from all other anarchists is that voluntaryist goals do not stop with the destruction of government. We could still have a society full of violence, even though there was no government. Human beings require an orderly society. (One must question the assumption that governments provide such an environment.) However, political law and government coercion are not the only way to provide for a peaceable existence. [6] Voluntaryists want an all voluntary society, one in which interpersonal relationships are based on mutually agreeable and voluntary exchanges. This is the end of voluntaryism: a regime of peaceful relationships based on respect for self-ownership and proprietary justice. It is this peaceful end which leads us to embrace nonviolence as a means.

Quote

"Violence may be directed at individuals, but when it comes to the State where is the violence to be directed?" Institutional arrangements can never be touched by violence because they are ideas carried in the minds of people practicing them. Public buildings may be destroyed, public officials murdered, but such efforts will never bring about the destruction of the idea of the State. The State is a state of mind, an idea which cannot be harmed by violence. Ideas can only be attacked with better ideas.

A question I like to ask folks is "From looking at the picture who would you say won?"

from people that are sure no change can occur ... or they are afraid to try .... they convince themselves that nothing happened from that movement.

If it were easy to see black/white equality of the late '60's back in 1950 more people might have thrown themselves into the fight. You don't know when, or even if your cause is going to win.

Took me a minute to get the bigger picture: Building a movement is like building a road. One brick, one plank at a time. The brick is not the whole road, but the road can't be built without it. No Russell, you are not "thick as a brick".